Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon?

Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon?

I contend it is because it was not a plane.

Your claiming impossible speeds and maneuvers were accomplished along with a claim "It was a plane" is undeniable evidence. In order to do this you will have to prove how a 767 can be flown 500 mph in level flight at sea level, how the plane managed to fly below 20 ft. with a pocket of compressed gas under the wings which makes it impossible. You link claims the plane skidded into the Pentagon yet the lawn is in pristine condition, not one blade of grass was displaced from the turbulence and plane hitting the ground proving this was impossible. How a plane continued to fly after striking light standards when in the past a plane hitting one light standard ripped off the wing and causing it to burst into flames and immediately fall to the ground and explode. It is impossible for a wings made from light weight composites to knock down several light standards without causing any damage or parts of the wings to be ripped from the plane. If 8,600 gallons of jet fuel was spilled on the ground federal laws would have considered it a hazardous waste site and would have been closed to remove all the soil and grass. This was not done. Plus, my question was why a video has not been released showing a plane was ignored completely by claiming it was a plane. This is ridiculous all of it. Try again, and remember you cannot ignore fundamental laws of motion because they don't support your theory. It doesn't work this way.

I'm confused. You say it was a plane but you are CON.
Your subject is open ended.
"Pentagon Strike on 9-11-2001" should say also, "was not a plane" or along that lines to signify your true position on the subject.

I might debate this one with you, but I have to do some research first, if I have time. I find it interesting that the videos we DID see showed no wreckage from the plane. just debris from the pentagon.